The Press: From Cuneiform to Current Form

In a day and age in which the uses and meaning of journalism are continually shifting, visiting the Crandall Historic Printing Museum gave context not only about the function of the press in the past, but also how this evolution is reflected in current day journalism.  While some of the means of communicating have clearly been altered since the days of cuneiform, it is significant to note that the purposes of journalism in communication have remained surprisingly constant.

A wealth of information, the Crandall Historical Printing Museum provides a steady stream of fascinating facts that could keep one amused for days or even weeks at a time.  For instance, I was fascinated to learn that the expression “mind your Ps and Qs” alludes to children misplacing confusing these two letters when putting them on a frame to print paper and that the terms “upper and lower case letters” originate from having typesetting stored in metal drawers.  On a more serious note, however, I was inspired by how mass printing played a key role in promoting revolutionary ideas to colonial Americans.  Without the printing press, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and other pamphlets would not have been distributed to ordinary citizens to galvanize them to fight for freedom of both expression and also the press.  One could even go as far as to argue that without Benjamin Franklin’s printing house, the American Revolution could not have been successful as it would have lacked the necessary support that would have come from widely disseminating this information.

Although the modern day press may lack the urgency of the revolutionary press in colonial America, it still espouses honesty and integrity.  In Chapter Three of The Elements of Journalism, Bill Kovach and Tom Rosensteil shed light upon the current quandary in the press of balancing the need to accrue profits with journalists’ duties to citizens to provide accurate information about people, events, and issues.  Max Frankel pays homage to the late former New York Times publisher in his article entitled “Punch Sulzberger and His Times” and saliently describes how Sulzberger skillfully dealt with this complicated issue: “his job was to give the news impartiality and reliably, without fear or favor, and to assure the survival of a precious institution. He had to make money, not to enrich the family or the stockholders, but mainly to protect the paper’s integrity and independence.”

Perhaps the most meaningful part of visiting the Crandall Historical Printing Museum was seeing how the press related to spreading our restored gospel.  In particular, I was moved and in astonishment that eight men and boys were able to produce 5,000 copies of the Book of Mormon in seven months.  Based upon the printing technology available at the time, such a feat would have been deemed virtually impossible.  I firmly believe that those men had divine intervention, and my testimony of the truth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been strengthened from learning this information.  Without the unique freedom of the American press, the Church would not have come to fruition, so despite the imperfections of the press, it is always important to keep in mind our duty as Latter-day Saints to preserve the freedom inherent in the vehicle that allowed the Restoration to be maintained.

Is the "Free Press" an Oxymoron?

Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of what makes the United States unique.  When the Founders included allowing freedom of the press in America, it showed that we not only won the revolution against England, but also against what much of the world stood for at the time.  Before becoming a sovereign nation, England severely restricted the colonial governments attempting to prevent them from publishing anything that could possibly tarnish the English crown.  By endowing our press with freedom, the Founders set us apart and implicitly espouse truth and reflecting the voice of the people.  Even today, many countries, such as India, label themselves as democracies but lack this distinguishable and arguably essential democratic feature.  However, as news has evolved, it begs the question: is the press really free?  Does it really reflect the public will, or do officials have their own agenda as to what becomes news, whether or not it actually benefits society?

In some ways, the press serves as a useful watchdog alerting the public about legitimate and substantial corruption.  For instance, Jeff Gottlieb and Ruben Vives did a service to the public by unveiling financial wrongs committed by members in the city government of Bell, California.  While it did not establish respect for public roles, it did espouse good values and morals and in turn increased the credibility and intent of journalism.

At the same time, I also maintain that the press does a disservice to the public by constantly searching for, and in some cases arguably thriving upon, political gaffes.  During this election season, I am disturbed to find that journalists on both sides of the political spectrum choose to write about almost comically insulting statements, usually taken out of context, that Mitt Romney or Barack Obama have said.  As Basil Smikle aptly states in his article published today in the New York Times entitled “Contradicting a Carefully Built Brand,” the “news outlets and social media play a special role in that they restate negative information with such speed and scope that it can drown out the consistent message that the campaign is trying to convey.”  When the public goes to the voting booth, they should be pondering policies of the different candidates rather than poorly worded lapses of the tongue.

Although the press is certainly free compared to other nations, it does not act as the informative watchdog as often as it purports and is frequently the rather low brow entertainer instead.  Elder Oaks correctly cautions that if the press continues to overly ridicule public officials or make relatively minor statements or scandals dominate in the news, there will be an erosion of trust in our public figures.  It is the responsibility of current and future journalists to stop this self-serving, destructive path which may lead to more columns or writing power for them but leaves society uninformed and cynical.

What is the Future of News?

As a child of the digital age who voraciously consumes news on applications, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and Drudge Report, on my iPhone and computer, I have always taken for granted that newspapers will likely shift to digital forms.  Growing up with this mentality, the loss of hard copy newspapers does not have the same poignant effect on me as it does for those used were born in an era in which newspapers were the primary source of news.  However, upon greater research, I have found that not only is the format changing, but more importantly, the content of the news available is being altered.

In essence, the emergence of the Internet is reflecting a fast-paced society.  John Carey and Nancy Hicks Maynard point out in “The Future of News, The Future of Journalism” that there are expanding sources of news that serve dual functions with search engines, such as Google and Yahoo! News.  Moreover, these authors also mention the novelty of any person to contribute to and respond to news through blog sources.  The trend toward the Internet appears to be effective, as evidenced by the New York Times being able to reach 50 million global users by going online, which is elaborated further in the following link in Newsonomics: http://newsonomics.com/new-new-york-times-plan-digital-world-domination/.

On the other hand, with these new outlets at the citizens’ disposal comes with a changed writing style.  From the vantage point of journalists, this ability to post content constantly, and as Carey and Maynard add, they have less time to analyze the events they are covering, and the consumers of this news react more and assess less.  As she openly states in Newseum’s episode entitled “The Future of News: Print News: Can it Survive?” Tina Brown feeds into this trend with her online publication Daily Beast which gives a “cheat sheet” of a summary of a news story complete with a link if one wishes to read further.

However, a major paradigm shift is occurring that is much more troubling than not being able to hold as many crisp newspapers.  What concerns me more is that the public is getting news that is extremely condensed, which has the disturbing potential to result in an uninformed public.  Although Cary and Maynard make numerous salient points, I believe they did not express this concern often enough.  While I applaud Tina Brown’s creativity and diverse accomplishments, I maintain her website is doing a disservice to the American public.  Even though I consume much of my news online, I firmly believe it is important to take the time to thoroughly examine an issue presented in an article rather than reading a “cheat sheet” which gives the temptation to delude oneself into believing one fully understands the article at hand.  Further, since more news is migrating online, I have a deeper fear when reading about lower-income residents of Kansas City, Missouri who do not have access to the Internet (a New York Times article elaborates further on this topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/us/in-one-city-signing-up-for-internet-becomes-a-civic-cause.html).  

In short, while I am excited and embrace the many opportunities the Internet brings, I have grave concerns about being lulled into complacency by the equivalent of increased fast-food news in the future, quick and satisfying in the short run but ultimately unhealthy.

What is Journalism For?

Journalism has evolved over time to become increasingly broad and complex, but the crux of it remains giving individuals the ability to gain greater knowledge, insight, and understanding about issues and events around the world.  Without reading articles in the New York Times such as James Kanter’s “European Leaders Step Up Talks,” average American citizens would not know that despite Germany’s generous offer of aid, Greece may fail to remain in the euro zone due to the country falling behind in the effort to reduce its deficit.  At the same time, it is important to note that there are numerous types of articles even in one publication that vary in style, topic, and length.  During these pivotal months before the United States, articles such as Michael Cooper’s “How the Party Platforms Differ” examines in a general manner stark differences about how the respective platforms for the Democratic and Republican Parties view pertinent issues rather than specific events related to this topic.
 

However, the emergence of new technology such as the Internet has revolutionized the meaning of journalism.  As John Carey and Nancy Hicks Maynard emphasize in “The Future of News, The Future of Journalism” the Internet has provided extra space which allows for the ability to provide essentially constant news coverage from different publications.  Of greater import, Carey and Maynard also point out that the Internet provides citizens with an outlet to write their own entries in blogs.

With the cacophony of different voices and options of both consuming and responding to news, it is difficult to uniformly capture the purpose and definition of journalism.  As Carey and Maynard discuss, the emergence of specialized news has caused segmentation in audiences.  This trend is evident in myself: since I am passionate about politics, I avidly consume news predominately about governmental matters.  Journalism constantly puts forth sources that examine practically any issue one can conjure, but few people utilize all of these resources.  Consequently, journalism provides a plethora of news formats, but its purpose can be tailored on an individual basis.